§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill."
§ 12.53 p.m.
§ Mr. MATHERSWith regard to the Schedule, I raised a question on Second Reading which I realised it would perhaps be more appropriate to raise on the Committee stage. While it is quite a minor point, I should be glad if I could have an answer. The question relates to the descriptions which are used here being not quite in keeping with the descriptions of His Majesty used in other Instruments.
§ 12.54 p.m.
§ Sir J. SIMONOn this point I think the hon. Gentleman and the Committee will see that this is a, Bill the Schedule to which could not be altered, because the Schedule merely contains a reproduction of a document that has been signed. It is, as it were, an exhibit of something that has been signed, and Clause 1, which we have passed, refers to
the Instrument of Abdication executed by His present Majesty on the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, set out in the Schedule …All that the Schedule does, therefore, is simply to add to the Bill the text of that which was signed. It is the fact that His Majesty signed the Instrument of Abdication in these terms. On the general question as to whether the descriptions used in the schedule are right or wrong, I have nothing to say, because, as we know, this was a voluntary abdication of the King and the document was his own.
§ Mr. MATHERSMay I ask whether this has anything to do with the act of Coronation or the fact that the act of Coronation has not taken place?
§ Mr. BARRI would like to say that I think the title in the Schedule is a. great improvement on the present title. For my part, I do not wish either the King or any Government to defend either my faith or the faith of any of His Majesty's subjects.
§ 12.55 p.m.
§ Sir J. SIMONMay I answer the further question which has been put by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). He asked whether I thought that the reason why His Majesty, in the text of the Instrument of Abdication, did not use the phrase "Defender of the Faith" had anything to do with the fact that the Coronation has not taken place. No, Sir. That is not so. The title, whatever be its history and whatever may be the view of the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr) upon it, does not attach to the Monarch because he has been crowned. It is one of the traditional titles of the Monarchy, and indeed I think hon. Members may recall what happened this morning in another place when the Royal Assent was being given to certain Bills. I think those who listened to the Royal Assent being given will have heard the title used there in the ordinary form. But it is the fact that His Majesty did not use that description in this document.
§ Mr. MATHERSI had already mentioned the point as to the Royal Assent.